The Dobbs Decision - Exacerbating U.S. Health Inequity

Spatiotemporal patterns and surveillance artifacts in maternal mortality in the United States: a population-based study

Background

Reports of high and rising maternal mortality ratios (MMR) in the United States have caused serious concern. We examined spatiotemporal patterns in cause-specific MMRs, in order to obtain insights into the cause for the increase.

Methods

The study included all maternal deaths recorded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 1999 to 2021. Changes in overall and cause-specific MMRs were quantified nationally; in low-vs high-MMR states (i.e., MMRs <20 vs ≥26 per 100,000 live births in 2018-2021); and in California vs Texas (populous states with low vs high MMRs). Cause-specific MMRs included those due to unambiguous causes (e.g., selected obstetric causes such as pre-eclampsia/eclampsia) and less-specific/potentially incidental causes (e.g., "other specified pregnancy-related conditions", chronic hypertension, and malignant neoplasms).

Findings

MMRs increased from 9.60 (n = 1543) in 1999-2002 to 23.5 (n = 3478) per 100,000 live births in 2018-2021. The temporal increase in MMRs was smaller in low-MMR states (from 7.82 to 14.1 per 100,000 live births) compared with high-MMR states (from 11.1 to 31.4 per 100,000 live births). MMRs due to selected obstetric causes decreased to a similar extent in low-vs high-MMR states, whereas the increase in MMRs from less-specific/potentially incidental causes was smaller in low- vs high-MMR states (MMR ratio (RR) 5.57, 95% CI 4.28, 7.25 vs 7.07, 95% CI 5.91, 8.46), and in California vs Texas (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.03, 2.69 vs 10.8, 95% CI 6.55, 17.7). The change in malignant neoplasm-associated MMRs was smaller in California vs Texas (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.08, 19.3 vs 91.2, 95% CI 89.2, 94.8). MMRs from less-specific/potentially incidental causes increased in all race/ethnicity groups.

Interpretation

Spatiotemporal patterns of cause-specific MMRs, including similar reductions in unambiguous obstetric causes of death and variable increases in less-specific/potentially incidental causes, suggest misclassified maternal deaths and overestimated maternal mortality in some US states.

Funding

This work received no funding.

Infant Deaths After Texas' 2021 Ban on Abortion in Early Pregnancy

Importance

Prior observational research has shown that infants born in states with more abortion restrictions are more likely to die during infancy. It is unclear how recent and more severe abortion bans in the US have impacted infant mortality.

Objective

To examine whether Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which banned abortions after embryonic cardiac activity and did not allow exemptions for congenital anomalies, is associated with infant mortality in the state of Texas.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based cohort study of all recorded infant deaths from the state of Texas and 28 comparison states used a comparative interrupted time series analysis with an augmented synthetic control approach and national birth certificate data from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2022, to estimate the difference between the number of observed and expected infant and neonatal deaths and death rates among monthly cohorts exposed to Texas' SB8.

Exposure

Deaths in March 2022 were treated as the first cohort exposed to the Texas' SB8 abortion policy because these infants (if born full term) were approximately 10 to 14 weeks' gestation when SB8 went into effect on September 1, 2021. The exposure period was thus March through December 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Our outcomes were monthly counts and rates of infant (aged <1 year) and neonatal (aged <28 days) deaths in the exposure period in Texas. In secondary analyses, annual changes in cause-specific infant deaths between 2021 and 2022 in Texas and the rest of the US were examined.

Results

Between 2018 and 2022, there were 102 391 infant deaths in the US, with 10 351 of these deaths occurring in the state of Texas. Between 2021 and 2022, infant deaths in Texas increased from 1985 to 2240, or 255 additional deaths. This corresponds to a 12.9% increase, whereas the rest of the US experienced a comparatively lower 1.8% increase. On the basis of the counterfactual analysis that used data from Texas and eligible comparison states, an excess of 216 infant deaths (95% CI, -122 to 554) was observed from March to December 2022, or a 12.7% increase above expectation. At the monthly level, significantly greater-than-expected counts were observed for 4 months between March and December 2022: April, July, September, and October. An analysis of neonatal deaths found somewhat similar patterns, with significantly greater-than-expected neonatal deaths in April and October 2022. Descriptive statistics by cause of death showed that infant deaths attributable to congenital anomalies in 2022 increased more for Texas (22.9% increase) but not the rest of the US (3.1% decrease).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that Texas' 2021 ban on abortion in early pregnancy was associated with unexpected increases in infant and neonatal deaths in Texas between 2021 and 2022. Congenital anomalies, which are the leading cause of infant death, also increased in Texas but not the rest of the US. Although replication and further analyses are needed to understand the mechanisms behind these findings, the results suggest that restrictive abortion policies may have important unintended consequences in terms of trauma to families and medical cost as a result of increases in infant mortality. These findings are particularly relevant given the recent Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization US Supreme Court decision and subsequent rollbacks of reproductive rights in many US states.

The Impact of the Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme Court Decision on Orthopaedic Residency Programs: A Collaborative Orthopaedic Education Research Group (COERG) Survey

BACKGROUND

Recent changes in reproductive health care policy have now led to state-specific differences in abortion care access across the United States. Members of the medical community in particular have issued concerns regarding these new policies and their potential impact on graduate medical training.  Objectives: The purpose of this study was to sample orthopaedic surgery residency programs to gauge their perceptions of the Dobbs decision and its impact on residency training.  Materials and methods: A 25-item questionnaire was developed to assess the attitudes of orthopaedic surgery residency programs on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. Our survey-based study was first endorsed by and then distributed amongst members of the Collaborative Orthopaedic Education Research Group (COERG). A total of 24 representatives from 24 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited orthopaedic surgery residency programs agreed to participate in the study.  Results: Twenty-four of 24 program correspondents completed the survey (100%). Of the 15 programs (68.2%) who reported that their institution does not have a contingency plan in place, only five (33.3%) see a need for one. Eighteen programs (75.0%) agreed that the ACGME should have a policy protecting residents or significant others needing reproductive care. Ten (41.7%) respondents indicated that the Dobbs decision will impact how students rank residency programs; however, none (0%) believe it will impact their ability to attract a diverse applicant pool.  Conclusion: Although some programs surveyed have a contingency plan in place, the majority believe the ACGME should develop a policy that addresses the reproductive needs of residents. Given the higher rate of pregnancy complications experienced by women training in orthopaedic surgery it is paramount to have policies that protect residents seeking reproductive care.

Late selective termination in dichorionic twins: comparing late second and third trimester procedures

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do perinatal outcomes of selective termination performed in the late second versus third trimester differ and what risk factors are associated with subsequent preterm birth?

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study of late selective terminations performed in dichorionic twins between 2009 and 2021. Perinatal outcomes were compared between two groups: group A, late second trimester (20.2 to 24.2 weeks, n = 26), and group B, third trimester (≥28.2 weeks, n = 55) selective terminations. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with post-procedure preterm birth.

RESULTS

In total, 81 dichorionic twin pregnancies were included. There were no pregnancy losses but 16% (13/81) of cases experienced complications. Group A had a higher median birthweight centile (36.5th versus 15th centile, P = 0.002) and lower rates of intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) and Caesarean delivery (11.5% versus 32.7%, P = 0.04; and 26.9% versus 61.8%, P = 0.003) than group B. Preterm birth rates were similar (46.2% versus 63.6%, P = 0.15). Multiple regression revealed that reduction of the presenting twin and cervical length ≤35 mm were independently associated with post-procedure preterm birth (odds ratio [OR] 8.7, P = 0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-29.8; OR 3.8, P = 0.015, 95% CI 1.3-11).

CONCLUSIONS

Late second trimester selective termination is associated with a higher birthweight centile and lower rates of IUGR and Caesarean delivery, compared with third trimester selective termination. Cervical length 35 mm or less and reduction of the presenting twin are independent risk factors for post-procedural preterm birth. These findings may help determine the optimal time to perform a late selective termination.

Efficacy of medication abortion with concurrent initiation of progestin contraceptives: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate medication abortion (MAB) outcomes for participants receiving intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) injections or subdermal etonogestrel implants concurrently with mifepristone compared to those who did not in a real-world setting.

STUDY DESIGN

This retrospective cohort study included MAB patients from one Planned Parenthood health center in St. Paul, MN, between 2017 and 2019. We abstracted electronic health records and compared sociodemographic variables, clinical information, and treatment failure rates (primary outcome) between study groups with logistic regression (generating odds ratios [OR] and 95% confidence intervals [CI]).

RESULTS

Among 7296 MAB participants, 224 (3.1%) received DMPA injections and 309 (4.2%) received etonogestrel implants concurrently with mifepristone; 141 (62.9%) and 200 (64.7%) completed follow-up respectively. From a random sample of 1000, 990 comparison participants met inclusion criteria; 704 (71.1%) completed follow-up. Fourteen (9.9%) DMPA participants (aOR 4.26, 95% CI 1.87-9.68, p < 0.001) and 6 (3.0%) etonogestrel implant participants (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 0.48-3.55, p = 0.522) required additional treatment to empty the uterus and/or had an ongoing pregnancy, each contrasted with 15 (2.1%) comparison patients (models adjusted for gestational duration, patient age, parity, and race).

CONCLUSION

Although our study is limited by high rates of loss to follow-up, our analysis suggests that concurrent administration of DMPA with mifepristone may decrease MAB efficacy, while etonogestrel implant placement does not appear to alter MAB outcomes. These findings are overall consistent with prior literature and inform post-MAB contraception counseling.

IMPLICATIONS

This retrospective cohort study reinforces prior randomized controlled trial findings that concurrent depot medroxyprogesterone acetate injection with mifepristone administration may decrease medication abortion efficacy. Conversely, concurrent etonogestrel contraceptive implant placement with mifepristone administration does not appear to decrease medication abortion efficacy. These findings inform post-abortion contraception counseling.

Reproductive justice for disabled people post-Dobbs: A call-to-action for researchers

The recent Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization endangers reproductive freedom, particularly for marginalized communities, including disabled people. Disability and health equity researchers possess unique insights into the needs and experiences of disabled people, making our involvement crucial in response to the Dobbs decision. Accordingly, guided by disability justice and reproductive justice principles, researchers should undertake disability-inclusive studies on the consequences of abortion restrictions, advocate for policy changes that uphold the reproductive autonomy of disabled people, and collaborate with disability-led movements advocating for reproductive freedom. Indeed, it is imperative for researchers to actively promote the inclusion and self-determination of disabled people regarding their reproductive health and well-being. Given the escalating threats to reproductive freedom and their profound impact on disabled people, there has never been a more pivotal moment for disability and health equity researchers to join the fight for reproductive justice.

US Obstetrician-Gynecologists' Perceived Impacts of Post-Dobbs v Jackson State Abortion Bans

Importance

Following the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in June 2022, 17 US states have functionally banned abortion except in narrow circumstances, and physicians found in violation of these laws face felony charges, loss of their medical license, fines, and prison sentences. Patient impacts are being studied closely, but less research has focused on the consequences for obstetrician-gynecologists (OB-GYNs), for whom medically necessary care provision may now carry serious personal and professional consequences.

Objective

To characterize perceptions of the impact of abortion restrictions on clinical practice, moral distress, mental health, and turnover intention among US OB-GYNs practicing in states with functional bans on abortion.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This qualitative study included semistructured, remote interviews with OB-GYNs from 13 US states with abortion bans. Volunteer sample of 54 OB-GYNs practicing in states that had banned abortion as of March 2023.

Exposure

State abortion bans enacted between June 2022 and March 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

OB-GYNs' perceptions of clinical and personal impacts of abortion bans.

Results

This study included 54 OB-GYNs (mean [SD] age, 42 [7] years; 44 [81%] female participants; 3 [6%] non-Hispanic Black or African American participants; 45 [83%] White participants) who practiced in general obstetrics and gynecology (39 [72%]), maternal-fetal medicine (7 [13%]), and complex family planning (8 [15%]). Two major domains were identified in which the laws affected OB-GYNs: (1) clinical impacts (eg, delays in care until patients became more sick or legal sign-off on a medical exception to the ban was obtained; restrictions on counseling patients on pregnancy options; inability to provide appropriate care oneself or make referrals for such care); and (2) personal impacts (eg, moral distress; fears and perceived consequences of law violation; intention to leave the state; symptoms of depression and anxiety).

Conclusions and relevance

In this qualitative study of OB-GYNs practicing under abortion bans, participants reported deep and pervasive impacts of state laws, with implications for workforce sustainability, physician health, and patient outcomes. In the context of public policies that restrict physicians' clinical autonomy, organization-level supports for physicians are essential to maintain workforce sustainability, clinician health and well-being, and availability of timely and accessible health care throughout the US.